EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]

[AvTvM]

Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]

Along my lines of expectation.

EF 16-35/4 IS ... Yes, if IQ is excellent from f/4 - including sharp corners. Price will be much higher than 17-40 but with an upper limit ... 16-35/2.8 II.
no competitor to nik 14-24/2.8 though. If at all, that univorn will only be released together with the mythical canon hi-res body ... "D800E-killer" ... Until that day, serious landscape requires nikon.

EF-S 10-18/4.5-5.6 IS STM ... Shorter and even slower than i expected. No replacement to EF-S 10-22. Really sounds like the WA end of a "plastic fantastic STM trinity". If it's very compact & light and IQ matches EF-M 11-22, priced around 300 i expect it to sell very well. Maybe also as triple zoom kit with sl-1/100d and 700D ... 10-18/18-55/55-250 ... all with silent stm for video. Rather nice, light and inexpensive "travel kit" ... and Nikon currently has nothing to compete with such a kit

Just got the 55-250 stm to go with my 7D when i am not willing to carry 70-200 2.8 II. IQ of the STM is no match of course ... but definitely ok. AF is quite slow though (for stills) in comparison.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]

I may be the only one here whose glad that neither of these announcements excites me! With so many other things to upgrade, it's good to know the UWA doesn't need to be, well, this season at least!

 

[verysimplejason]

Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]

thing is those budget plastic mount 18-55 IS STM and 55-250 IS STM are actually mad sharp, heck the 55-250 STM is said to rival the 70-200 f/4 IS for optics.

Sorry, but that's a bit of a stretch. They are good, but not that good. Then again, you don't expect them to perform the same as a lens costing 1K more, do you?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=856&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=404&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

They're almost the same. Just add a little bit of contrast and sharpening and you'll never be able to distinguish them apart. Just my 2 cents.

 

[adhocphotographer]

Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]

16-35 f/4 IS is interesting... wide angle with IS... good range for crop and UWA for FF...

Anyway, it will be expensive... I will see how it does when it is in the wild before i would consider buying it, and even then i would wait 6 months - year after it is announced for the price to stabilize!

 

[noncho]

Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]

10-18 would be interesting to me year ago...
Now I have great 11-22 for M.

16-35/4 sounds great for FF users.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]

Wow....year of the lens....a pair of wides no one wanted and a set of TS-e lenses that certainly no one wanted....
Meanwhile, the 35mm f1.4 II L and 100-400 II L unicorns stay in their stable....

 

[Marsu42]

Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]

and a set of TS-e lenses that certainly no one wanted....

... or no one can afford ... but from Canon's perspective it's still a smart choice because these are (afaik) unique to their mount, so "strengthen your strengths" as marketing people advise.

 

[tron]

Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]

I would love to see an optically outstanding 16-35mm update, and if the coma is well controlled at f/4, wouldn't mind it being only f/4 aperture. As with everyone else, I am really most anxious to see a 12-24mm lens of at least the same image quality as the Nikon offering. Image stabilization on WA lens - nice, but not a necessity for me, I use a tripod or steady the camera against a ledge or tree limb or knee or..

Since you referenced coma I believe that you are interested in Astrophotography. In that case a f/2.8 lens is much more useful. Also even the current 16-35 2.8 II lens will have less coma at f/4... But, for Astrophotography the faster lens the better (I have used up to 10000 to 12800 ISO and I wouldn't want to have to use 25600)

By the way I am interested in Astrophotography. I sold my 16-35 2.8 L (version I) and I use a Zeiss 21mm 2.8 and a Canon 14mm 2.8 L II (not perfect but much better than my 16-35...)

 

[climber]

Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]

@Tron: How do you like Canon's 14mm 2.8 for landscape?

 

[ahsanford]

Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]

I would love to see an optically outstanding 16-35mm update, and if the coma is well controlled at f/4, wouldn't mind it being only f/4 aperture. As with everyone else, I am really most anxious to see a 12-24mm lens of at least the same image quality as the Nikon offering. Image stabilization on WA lens - nice, but not a necessity for me, I use a tripod or steady the camera against a ledge or tree limb or knee or..

Since you referenced coma I believe that you are interested in Astrophotography. In that case a f/2.8 lens is much more useful. Also even the current 16-35 2.8 II lens will have less coma at f/4... But, for Astrophotography the faster lens the better (I have used up to 10000 to 12800 ISO and I wouldn't want to have to use 25600)

By the way I am interested in Astrophotography. I sold my 16-35 2.8 L (version I) and I use a Zeiss 21mm 2.8 and a Canon 14mm 2.8 L II (not perfect but much better than my 16-35...)

I'm not an astro person, but from what I've read (http://www.lonelyspeck.com/lenses-for-milky-way-photography/), an F/4 zoom is not ideal. Coma isn't really covered here, but this guy's calculations would suggest wide FL + wide max aperture are king.

- A

 

[Random Orbits]

Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]

When the 6D was announced, a lot of people would have opted for the 5D II instead, but then the 6D's IQ and other features won out in the end. When the 24-70 f/4 IS was announced, a lot of people swore by their 24-105 f/4 IS, but now people are considering the 24-70 f/4 IS over the 24-105 f/4 IS. If the 16-35 f/4 IS has better IQ than the existing 16-35 f/2.8 II, then it will also be a winner.

I see the 16-35 f/4 IS ultimately taking over the spot of the 17-40 and will create a trio of L f/4 IS zooms: 16-35/24-70/70-200. There is still room for a 16-35 f/2.8 III and a 14-24 f/2.8. I've tried the 24 f/2.8 IS, 28 f/2.8 IS and 35 f/2 IS, and I'm not convinced that IS is needed at such short focal lengths. I could get sharper results around 1/15 with IS off (albeit with a lower keeper rate), and I can get good results with IS at 1/10 to 1/6, but the results still show motion blur at 100%. 1/6 isn't slow enough to blur clouds or water, so there aren't that many scenarios where IS would be useful (for stills). Longer than that and I'd rather use a tripod or jack up the ISO because there is too much motion blur even with IS on to get a good shot consistently.

Also agree with others thinking that the 10-18 might be sold as in a kit wit the 18-55/55-250. That would be an atttractive package to beginner DSLR users.

 

[tron]

Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]

Coma isn't really covered here, but this guy's calculations would suggest wide FL + wide max aperture are king.
- A

True but: The 35mm 1.4L and 24 1.4L II are coma kings too! In addition there are no UWA lenses faster than 2.8 (14, 16mm, etc) anyway.

 

[ahsanford]

Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]

When the 6D was announced, a lot of people would have opted for the 5D II instead, but then the 6D's IQ and other features won out in the end. When the 24-70 f/4 IS was announced, a lot of people swore by their 24-105 f/4 IS, but now people are considering the 24-70 f/4 IS over the 24-105 f/4 IS.

+1. Dead on. In my hands and for my needs, The 24-70 F/4L IS is a comprehensive winner. It's lighter and shorter than all the L 24-something lenses, sharper than everything but the 24-70 F/2.8L II, and the 0.7x macro is unbelievably handy in walkaround shooting situations.

Comparing to my previous 24-70, the older 24-70 F/2.8L I, I gave up one stop in return for IS, sharper performance, a massive weight reduction, useful size reduction (I can get the F/4 into some sporting venues with a 6" size limit), and the macro is just gravy. That's a terrific trade for how and what I shoot.

There's a long-running gun battle between 24-70 F/4L IS proponents and 24-105 F/4L IS proponents, and I don't want to start the length vs. overall IQ/features debate here as people have really strong opinions about this. Suffice it to say, you know where my vote is.

I see the 16-35 f/4 IS ultimately taking over the spot of the 17-40 and will create a trio of L f/4 IS zooms: 16-35/24-70/70-200. There is still room for a 16-35 f/2.8 III and a 14-24 f/2.8.

Agree again. That seems to be where this is going -- Canon is pushing high quality F/4 zooms that are worthy of the L designation, but do not have the enormous / heavy / 82mm filter / built-for-war designs that the top of the line F/2.8 zooms represent. I'm tickled pink about that as I get a 9/10 lens at everything except for aperture, and I don't shoot sports (at all) or portraiture (with a zoom). So I'm just saving my back and my wallet with these 'sleeper' / 'pro-lite' lenses that work like a charm.

I know it's not what the die-hard enthusiasts and pros may want, but I'm pretty geeked about this F/4 zoom (if/when it happens).

- A

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]

thing is those budget plastic mount 18-55 IS STM and 55-250 IS STM are actually mad sharp, heck the 55-250 STM is said to rival the 70-200 f/4 IS for optics.

Sorry, but that's a bit of a stretch. They are good, but not that good. Then again, you don't expect them to perform the same as a lens costing 1K more, do you?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=856&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=404&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

Maybe, I was just going by Canon's MTF charts and a few early reports. Maybe in practice it doesn't work out.

(although I don't entirely trust TDP, I'd like to see some photozone.de and some other reports too, TDP has had a lot of results that haven't matched my own careful tests or some other sites at times; it also depends how you do the tests, TDP might test close and I don't think they refocus for mid-frame or corner the latter you can argue which way is a more sensible way to test but regardless of that it makes radically trickier to test consistently, but even center frame.... I mean their tamron lenses all look like coke bottles and so on)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]

erggg what is with all the underwhelming slow aperture lenses! why not a 16-35 f2.8 IS? really c'mon canon
f4 wow awesome... NOT

room to fit in IS, $1300 instead of $2300 perhaps, potential to make it perform a touch better stopped down to landscape DOF where this focal range is most often (although yes not always) used when used on FF, makes it smaller and lighter by a lot, also nice, since you might want to hike around with it paired with one or two other lenses.

 

[ahsanford]

Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]

thing is those budget plastic mount 18-55 IS STM and 55-250 IS STM are actually mad sharp, heck the 55-250 STM is said to rival the 70-200 f/4 IS for optics.

Sorry, but that's a bit of a stretch. They are good, but not that good. Then again, you don't expect them to perform the same as a lens costing 1K more, do you?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=856&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=404&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

Maybe, I was just going by Canon's MTF charts and a few early reports. Maybe in practice it doesn't work out.

(although I don't entirely trust TDP, I'd like to see some photozone.de and some other reports too, TDP has had a lot of results that haven't matched my own careful tests or some other sites at times; it also depends how you do the tests, TDP might test close and I don't think they refocus for mid-frame or corner the latter you can argue which way is a more sensible way to test but regardless of that it makes radically trickier to test consistently, but even center frame.... I mean their tamron lenses all look like coke bottles and so on)

Trust TDP for a lot of things: usage experience, handling, databases of specs and insights about lenses' strengths/weaknesses.

I just don't use it for IQ data. There are a boatload of sites that do that a bit better.

- A

 

[dgatwood]

Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]

erggg what is with all the underwhelming slow aperture lenses! why not a 16-35 f2.8 IS? really c'mon canon
f4 wow awesome... NOT

Agreeed. I would ditch my 16-35 L II for an equally fast IS version in an instant. An f/4? Meh. Too much functional overlap with my 24–105.

Then again, in Canonthink™, that would reduce demand for the 24mm f/1.4 L, so I wouldn't expect them to build one any time soon.

 

[ahsanford]

Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]


Let there be (potentially fake) pictures!

http://photorumors.com/2014/05/12/first-pictures-of-the-upcoming-canon-wide-angle-lenses/

A plastic mount on the 10-18 (if true) screams being right in line with the 'budget trinity' of 10-18 / 18-55 / 55-250 that some have speculated about. That would also mean (a) it can't possibly cost much and (b) it is likely not a replacement of the EF-S 10-22mm F/3.5-4.5 USM.

I can't make out the filter diameter of that 16-35 F/4L IS, but I've got my fingers crossed for 77mm.

- A

 

[Deleted member 20471]

Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]

I can't make out the filter diameter of that 16-35 F/4L IS, but I've got my fingers crossed for 77mm.

I think it looks like 77mm! ;D

 

[wickidwombat]

Re: EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM & EF 16-35 f/4L IS Around the Corner? [CR2]

erggg what is with all the underwhelming slow aperture lenses! why not a 16-35 f2.8 IS? really c'mon canon
f4 wow awesome... NOT

room to fit in IS, $1300 instead of $2300 perhaps, potential to make it perform a touch better stopped down to landscape DOF where this focal range is most often (although yes not always) used when used on FF, makes it smaller and lighter by a lot, also nice, since you might want to hike around with it paired with one or two other lenses.

One of the main reasons i use the 16-35 f2.8 II is to shoot it wide open. Although I do understand the reason for cheaper slower lenses but cmon how about giving the top end some love canon lets have a 16-35 f2.8 IS L that sharp corner to corner like the 24-70 II.